Random observations on 9/11

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but, lori, you can't actually have an effect on things...romney could. he should know not to pop off before he gets all the details, because they matter.
as the article said, the part about 'feelings' was issued before the attack occurred.
now he has to backtrack again, and it's no one's fault but his. former presidents keep mum on things like this, with reason. perhaps candidates should as well? he's not in charge, a question on what his policy would be in a situation like this is something to ask as a rhetorical question. and he should have said something like, it's a developing story-until more is known, i have no comment. beats looking like a neophyte, or having to apoligize, or just plain looking like he's clueless-again.


just saw this, on the romney campaigns 'odd response'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._protests.html

romney decided to condemn pre-attack statements as tho they came after the attack. and they had time before their 'embargo' ended to get it straight.

i do agree that obviously his voice is a lot louder than mine.. and I agree politicians should sit and think before they speak (then again... what good does it do when they sit and think also?).

but I'm telling you, the media seems to mix and match so much it is hard to keep anything straight. Plus the whole thing about them reporting what they want to report, not facts and truths.